54

WORD OF GOD-HOW A RULE ON SOCIAL QUESTIONS.

CHAPTER III.

THE WORD OF GOD, AND IN WHAT WAY IT IS TO BE USED AS A RULE AND LAW ON THIS AND OTHER SOCIAL QUESTIONS.

Section I-Old Testament and New the Rule of Faith and Morals. 1. THE whole Bible, Old Testament and New, is still the rule of faith and morals to the Church, as well as the source of divine instruction and consolation. Many Christians may think it very unnecessary to affirm such a proposition. I have a very different opinion. Even on the whole subject of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, such loose and sceptical views prevail among many professing Christian divines, as to subvert to a very great extent the authority of many parts of Scripture, as an authoritative rule of faith and manners. This is true of some whose opinions on the marriage question are deemed of sufficient weight to be exhibited as authorities to determine men's judgments without farther inquiry. It is impossible to enter on the question of inspiration here. But, unless we receive in its simplicity the authoritative declaration of the Apostle Paulin other words, of the Spirit of God," All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," I do not believe that on the present or any other question of religion and morals, "the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." I hold this to be a vital point, and that no one is competent to discuss this subject as one of Bible authority, who does not own and receive the divine authority and obligation of every part of the sacred Scriptures. He may perplex, bewilder, and mislead the ignorant and unwary, and afford to the children of passion and sin, "pillows to all armholes," but he cannot be of any real use to settle the Christian judgment of the sincere inquirer.

2. But beyond this there is another question, viz.-In what way and to what extent is the Bible, including both the Old Testament and New, to be used as a rule and law on this and other social questions? This question I deem most important, as I believe that it is from the prevalence of a large amount of scepticism and unbelief on this head, that many who profess to try the question by the Levitical law, find themselves at liberty to deal with it in a way they would not venture to do, if they really believed that they were still bound to the Old Testament as a rule of faith and manners, both in relation to God and to man. That much ignorance and unbelief prevail on this point it were easy to prove. Proofs will occur in our subsequent discussions, sufficient to show that if the principles affirmed on this head by many of the writers on the Marriage Question be true and well founded, all discussion of particular passages is foreclosed; and we may at once cast aside not only the Old Testament, but all Bible law and authority together. Though prepared to expect much from the parties engaged in the Libertarian movement, I was not prepared to expect such statements as I find contained in a pamphlet entitled "The Men of Glasgow, and the Women of Scotland, by T. Binney, London." He tells us it was written at the special request of a (so-called) "Free Church Elder," whose zeal in his vocation has not been small, and whose penetration to dis

MR BINNEY OF LONDON-DR SYMINGTON.

55

cover a fitting and willing coadjutor has been considerable. It purports to be an answer to an able speech of Dr Symington, of this city, published as a four-page tract. It consists of 68 pages. It is written in a tone of selfconfidence, and in a spirit of levity, with which its author may rest assured no portion of "the men of Glasgow, and the women of Scotland," but the "lewd and baser sort," will have any sympathy; and which they will deem altogether unworthy of the subject, and of a minister of the gospel in discussing it. My business for the present, however, is with the sentiments of one or two passages. At pp. 39, 40, we have the following

6

"With respect to Christianity he (Dr Symington) does not go far enough. He does not seem to apprehend what it proposes to do, and how it aims at it. Instead of telling us that we need a particular precept for everything, -and can know nothing, and do nothing, without the specifications of some 'statute law,'-it is the peculiar distinction of the gospel to impart a new nature, to infuse into the soul a spirit and a life, that make the child of God a law unto himself. Law is not made for such, it is not necessary; he is taught of God after another fashion; and by the unction of the Holy One, and the instincts, so to speak, of the inward man, which after the image of God is renewed in righteousness and true holiness,—he is at once taught the things that are pure and becoming, and preserved from falling into the gross and low. Christianity does not come as law, to take men by the hand, lead them along like children or blind persons, telling them, by a distinct particular precept, how they are to step, and where they are to place their foot next; no: it opens men's eyes,-places them in the light, makes them children of the day,'-and produces such a development and such an elevation of their moral nature, that they can be trusted to guide themselves. Does Dr Symington believe that he himself has really no reason for abstaining from certain abominations' but the Levitical law?-and that he actually does abstain because of that law? don't believe this of him, if he does. His reasoning in support of his first general principle, mistakes and misrepresents three things,-things, too, of some little importance; namely, the moral responsibilities of man without revelation, the Mosaic institute,-and the Gospel."

I

Without remarking on the very unfair representation given of Dr Symington's views in this passage, I have to observe, that most certainly if Dr Symington did go the length proposed in this passage, he would "go far enough," and something more. The questions here put to Dr Symington are altogether irrelevant, and aside from the subject. The question is not, What is the feeling of Dr Symington, or of any Christian man; but, What is the law of God? Not what Dr Symington, or any other man may or will do. The Bible leaves us in no difficulty as to what is the use of the law-viz., that which is the use of all laws, in the first instance-to curb and restrain the unruly and the vile" But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for man-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, AND IF THERE BE ANY OTHER THING THAT IS CONTRARY TO SOUND DOCTRINE, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God." It is to stand as a warning and condemnation of them all; and God has declared that terrible punishment will follow its violation, let the violators be who they may. It is perfectly true

56

THEOLOGY OF MR BINNEY ON THE QUESTION.

Its

that the New Covenant promise, in regard to all the people of God, is, that "God will put his law in their hearts, and write it in their minds ;"—but it were a strange use of this promise to say, that it absolves from the strict and literal observance of the law; still more, that it effaces it from the Sacred Record as the perfect rule and standard of morals. This were emphatically to turn the grace of God into licentiousness. Christianity is as much a system of precepts as of doctrines-of rules for the outward life, as of principles to govern the inner life. The light and power of the Spirit given to the Christian is the light and power to see, believe, and obey what is written; to receive "the incorruptible seed of the Word," and to "live thereby." The law is not made against (ou xeira) such an one for his condemnation, because he is freed from it through the blood of Christ. end is "love out of a good conscience, and faith unfeigned." "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid, yea, we establish the law." Any assertion of an "inner life," separate from "the incorruptible seed of the Word," and its ruling power, is pure, unmitigated fanaticism and antinomian licentiousness. It is the very essence and spirit of the views and conduct of the Munster Anabaptists; who not only held these very views, but carried them out in loathsome practice, till outraged society was compelled to restrain them. Men as good and pure as any who hold such enthusiastic notions believe that so vile and deceitful is the heart of man, and so strong the remaining power of sin in the best, that but for the plain announcements and express condemnation of particular sins, by particular names and particular precepts, even good men would be led into grievous sins. Good men were so of old, and in this respect there is nothing new under the sun. Every good man is thankful that he has the law of God as a beacon as well as a guide. The philosophy of Mr Binney's sentiments is as bad as their theology and morals. For how in reality does the law of gratitude and love, the inner life of the Christian, operate when he is tempted? Just as it did in the case of Joseph," How shall I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” How is he to know sin against God? Just as Paul did,—“ I had not known lust except THE LAW had said, Thou shalt not covet." A little of the spirit of Paul would prevent much selfcomplacency in the security of the "inner life" as a guide in conduct, even in the best, not to speak of its "development" in English society." made him cry out, "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me?" The theology of old Manton on this point is infinitely to be preferred to that of Mr Binney. On Hebrews xi. 7,-"Noah warned of God," and exercising faith on the threatenings of God, he says,- "We may make use of the Spirit's argument without sin. Usually men, instead of being over-spiritual, grow over-carnal. Terrors and threatenings are propounded to us to drive us from sin, even to men that are assured of God's love. Though we have an indefeasible right in the great inheritance, yet we must look upon the Lord as a consuming fire,-Heb. xii. ult. The Lord would help our infirmity this way. This argument is of most force, because the Spirit of God argues and discourseth in the heart of believers just as He argues in the Scriptures. Now, thus the Spirit argues in the Scripture; and therefore the Word of God is called the sword of the Spirit,-Eph. vi. 17. In all your inward combats, or the civil wars of the soul, the renewed heart makes use of Scripture arguments; and in Scripture, as God encourageth with love, so He aweth with threatening." He then shows that this was true of Noah, Job, Paul, and other holy persons; and it is much to be doubted if

"

It

MANTON ON THE LAW AS A RULE TO CHRISTIANS.

57

the developed spirit of "English society" is much in advance of any one of these holy men, and if it is not true, as Manton says, that "the devil is as subtle, and our corruptions as strong, as ever.' The very commission to preach the gospel concluded thus," Teaching them to observe ALL things whatsoever I have COMMANDED you.”

But the author of this pamphlet is not content with the plain-speaking already quoted. He returns to the sentiment in another form. At p. 52 there occurs the following passage, which, though long, is too instructive to be curtailed. After rejecting "Moses," as judge, in other words, God, who spake by Moses for whatever purpose he did speak, he comes to "THE ARGUMENT CONCLUDED," and asks, "And who is that Judge?" and answers, "Ultimately, Christ, or Christianity :-mediately, enlightened, purified, Christian intelligence ;-the reason and conscience of society, as influenced and affected by the Church;—the reason and conscience of the Church, as quickened, elevated, and developed by the spirit of the gospel. We have no Christian law on the subject, and we need none. Christianity is not so much an outward, prescriptive law, as an inward, directing life. It is not a letter, but a spirit. It is intended to make man a law unto himself, by so making him a partaker of the divine nature,' that he shall instinctively love all that is just, pure, and becoming; and shall do them, not because he thinks of them as enforced by command, but because he feels himself drawn to them by an inward necessity. The question really is with us, in respect to many things, not what the Mosaic law either commanded or tolerated,-for we feel that we have liberty to neglect the command, and not liberty to take the toleration, but, what is most in accordance with the spirit of Christianity-revealed by its light, nourished by its influence that can live in the atmosphere breathed by the Church, and be felt to be in unison with the promptings and impulses of the new nature? In the case before us, the first question appears to me to be this,-To the spiritual feelings, and holy or purified instincts of Christian men, does the permission of marriage with a deceased wife's sister present itself in the same aspect as the toleration of slavery to the Jew, or his permitted facility of divorce? Then the second question is,In the present condition of English society, according to our habits of social intercourse, in consistency with the advantages which we have reaped, as a people, by the long existence of Christianity in the midst of us, and, in the view of the known or the probable results of the allowance or disallowance of the marriage in question,—does modern delicacy, a healthy, moral tone of mind, or instructed common sense, revolt from the approval or tolerance of this marriage, and demand the interference of civil and secular legislation to prevent it? These are the real questions at issue; they are far more important than any investigation of the 18th of Leviticus; and the answers to be held as returned to them by the right of authority are more to be regarded than anything that can be gathered from the laws and institutions of a distant age, many of them confessedly adapted to 'the times then present,' and to the loose notions and low standards of a half-civilised people.'

It will be observed that the reasoning, or rather declamatory sophistry of this passage, goes to the repeal of all laws, not only against all crimes arising from the lusts of the flesh, against adultery and incest of every degree, but crimes of every dye which are forbidden in the law of Moses.

* Manton's Works, folio, vol. iii. p. 300.

If Mr Binney will help to keep quiet the consciences of the men of England, who have broken at least the law of their country, we are thoroughly persuaded that such views will make the men of Scotland hesitate before they follow their example.

66

On this writer's view of law, "we have no Christian law" on any subject. What does he mean when he tells us we have no Christian law on the subject?" Does he confine the term "Christian" to what is contained in the New Testament? If he mean that the whole law of God, as contained in the Old Testament, is abolished, he contradicts the express words of our Lord Jesus Christ himself, who said, "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it." If he will show in what way our Lord fulfilled the Levitical law on the subject in hand, so as to relieve men from the obligation to obey it, he will do something to his purpose, but not otherwise. In the meantime, we pronounce this line of statement to be a most shocking perversion of the gospel of the grace of God. On his principle, if Moses be rejected, the only shadow of revealed law on the subject of incestuous connection that remains to bind, not only Christian men and believers, but any man whatever, is that which declares-1 Cor. v. 1— that the very heathen abhorred such connection with a step-mother. In regard to all others, "we have no Christian law on the subject!" What notions this writer holds of Christ as the King and Lawgiver, as well as Priest of the Church from the beginning, or how he believes that he is Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, it is not easy to understand.

If the questions put in this passage by Mr Binney be "the real questions at issue," and if they are to be decided by the spirit of English civilization, he might have spared himself and his readers the trouble of his first fifty pages. But the "men of Glasgow and the women of Scotland" are not yet prepared to prefer the "present condition of English society," as a standard of morals, on any one subject whatever, to "the laws and institutions" of God himself, even though he gave them "in a distant age" to a people "half civilised;" but of whom, when they received them, he said, they would be a wise and understanding people above all people." I protest against the views expounded in this latter passage quoted from Mr Binney, as a miserable compound of German Neology and Antinomian enthusiasm, as well as of ill-concealed Popery. Strange to say that the Independent minister is to find, not his law, for he is without law, but his directing life" in "the reason and conscience of the Church, as quickened, elevated, and developed by the spirit of the Gospel!" What is this development then? Where is it? Who can fix it?" Who can see it?

What is this notion but the downright Popish principle of the authority of the Church? And what is this authority practically but the Priest? Or, in Independency, but each man a law unto himself? Dr Newman and Mr Binney meet in this theory of development; and if Mr Binney progress in seeking for another standard than the objective Word and Law of God, they may yet meet in a more practical harmony still. I doubt much if the civil government of this country will consent to exempt, by formal repeal, even Mr Binney or any who hold his views, from the operation of the laws founded on the fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, or even seventh commandment. His principles are subversive of all law whatever, in a nation calling itself Christian. They may be accepted, however, as a proof both of the weakness of his cause, and of the lengths to which

any